Generally, when a behavior model for microelectromechanical devices is developed, developers may take one of two approaches: a “top-down” approach or a “bottom-up” approach. In a “top-down” approach the developer begins with desired features of the device and then attempts to determine a geometry and shape of the device that will provide the desired features, resulting in an eventual physical device that may be tested. However, in this approach, if the result produces a physical microelectromechanical device that is outside of the desired specifications (and, therefore, is not suitable), the entire process, from the design to the physical device, must be redone, losing any incremental progress that may have been achieved.
Conversely, in a “bottom-up” approach, a physical three-dimensional structure of the desired microelectromechanical device is built first. Once built, the microelectromechanical structure may undergo a finite-element method or a boundary-element method analysis, which may then be transformed into a behavioral model of the microelectromechanical structure. From this behavior model further design may be performed for new microelectromechanical devices. However, similar to the “top-down” approach described above, if a microelectromechanical device is designed from the behavior model and is outside of the desired specifications, the entire process must be repeated, including the original manufacturing of the three-dimensional structure, the finite-element method, the transformation into a behavior model, and the eventual redesign of the desired device. As such, neither of these approaches allows for an improvement of the behavioral model without again undertaking the entire design process, thereby wasting time and resources.
Corresponding numerals and symbols in the different figures generally refer to corresponding parts unless otherwise indicated. The figures are drawn to clearly illustrate the relevant aspects of the preferred embodiments and are not necessarily drawn to scale.